On Sun, Apr 13, 2003 at 02:25:43AM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 13, 2003 at 01:02:05AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > On Sat, Apr 12, 2003 at 03:44:54PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> > > Have you tried http://bugs.qa.debian.org/?
> >
> > http://bugs.qa.debian.org/cgi-bin/standard.cgi says that bison has 3
> > serious bugs.
> >
> > Page discarded as useless due to wanton inaccuracy.
>
> Reporter discarded as useless due to wanton flamage based on lack of
> knowledge. Of course, that's not really a surprise.
>
> (Hint for the unaware: #166130, #166897, #167054. The fact that
> pkgreport.cgi doesn't display them is a bug in debbugs, not
> bugs.qa.debian.org.)
So bugs.qa.debian.org has a different notion of what constitutes an RC
bug in a package to everything else, including the testing
code. That's not very useful. It's more effective to grep the bugscan
output, so this script has failed at the first hurdle.
Particularly since none of those three bugs are actually bugs in
bison. And nobody ever reassigned them because they had no way to even
*notice* them.
The "the rest of the world is wrong and this is right" attitude is
cute, but when everything else that matters disagrees[0], it's not very
productive.
[0] http://ftp-master.debian.org/testing/update_excuses.html.gz
http://bugs.debian.org/release-critical/debian/main.html
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?pkg=bison
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ | Dept. of Computing,
`. `' | Imperial College,
`- -><- | London, UK
Attachment:
pgpzO56QJVsZy.pgp
Description: PGP signature